Community

Nov 26, 2012 -- 1:01PM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

I would like the paladin as balanced as the next class, and to be Lawful Good, that's just part of the deal, you shouldn't be playing one to be more powerful, and the class shouldn't be, you are playing it for a very specialised class/play experience, to have paladins of every alignment (except Chaotic Evil, the diametric, love the githyanki anti-paladins!) dilutes the whole thing, most classes can be any alignment, like clerics; it also helps distinguish them from the cleric. 

And yes, a paladin's special powers are definitely at least part ethos based, the LG thing is more paramount to them than the gods bit.

That's the way you see it. Many disagree with you. Why can't those of us who don't want to be shoehorned into one way of playing be forced to do so? I play every class for a specialized play experience. Being shoehorned into one little alignment box isn't needed for that. It is something I'm not willing to accept.

Nov 26, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Nov 26, 2012 -- 1:34PM, Samrin wrote:

Nov 26, 2012 -- 1:01PM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

I would like the paladin as balanced as the next class, and to be Lawful Good, that's just part of the deal, you shouldn't be playing one to be more powerful, and the class shouldn't be, you are playing it for a very specialised class/play experience, to have paladins of every alignment (except Chaotic Evil, the diametric, love the githyanki anti-paladins!) dilutes the whole thing, most classes can be any alignment, like clerics; it also helps distinguish them from the cleric. 

And yes, a paladin's special powers are definitely at least part ethos based, the LG thing is more paramount to them than the gods bit.

That's the way you see it. Many disagree with you. Why can't those of us who don't want to be shoehorned into one way of playing be forced to do so? I play every class for a specialized play experience. Being shoehorned into one little alignment box isn't needed for that. It is something I'm not willing to accept.

I posted "I would like", and you have what you like, isn't that what 5th Ed is about, and part of the problem? 

The problem is, what you would like is for others to not get what they like. LG or get out ("That's just part of the deal"). I'm saying that's fine as an optional way to play, but being the only way is catering to one specific playstyle only.

I'm not sure who pushed this thread over the edge, but it's growing as it's rolling.

It started as such a wonderful discussion about the nature of the paladin. I can already smell the new argument brewing and it's making me wretch.

Again, to re-iterate, the actual paladin never gained their powers from following a deity. D&D did that for 4e and it was a departure from both previous editions and from the actual paladins of old myth and legend. Now, at this point, it really does become a value judgment. You know, I propose there be a new class made, one that gets different powers based on what deity they follow, that's more martial than the cleric. We can call it the crusader. 3.5 had a paladin and a crusader, and their crusader worked a lot like that.

See, I really do think there is room for a divinely empowered warrior that follows a deity, but I don't think the paladin should be forced into that role because that isn't who the paladin really is or what the paladin is really about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for people who do want a non-priestly more martial crusaderish type, do you honestly care if it is called the paladin or not, or doesn't work in all the same ways the paladin does? Since there is such a strong demand for this kind of thing, I'm starting to think there does need to be a dedicated crusader class, and it would be awesome to see the distinction between an actual crusader and an actual paladin.

Yes, there are modules, and bloat is dangerous, but this is clearly a huge deal to both sides, and I don't think the side that wants a viable non-multiclass option for a crusader-type is wrong. I know I would hate to be told I should just multi-class fighter/cleric to simulate a paladin. Aside from the whole deity-disconnect, it's someone telling me to be satisfied with less because I don't deserve more. Well screw that I say. Who's up for a crusader class, that preserves the paladin's identity as the lightbringer and champion of life?

What I don't really understand is why the paladin can't be deity, alignment, and ethos based under the model we can extrapolate from the most recent L&L article.

It seems to me that what's important to people is what it's called in the book, 'cause anyone who doesn't like like alignment will assign deities or secular ethos to the various versions and someone who doesn't like deities will assign alignment or ethos to them. Someone who sees the paladin serving secular powers will keep an ethos of some kind but they'll just spread the various versions across those and ignore deities and alignment. Or you could include all three at once.

I really like what Mearls said. The fact that he chose to use alignment as a basis doesn't mean that the concepts aren't usable in a variety of ways and given a nigh on infinite list of labels; it's pretty much what a lot of us have made a case for in this thread if you look back.

So Mearls said "lawful good" and "paladin" in the same sentence. So freaking what. It's a label that serves his purposes and it can be changed. let's not get lost in semantic arguments.

So what abilities would the chaotic good paladin have (or rebel with a cause, let's say)?

Nov 26, 2012 -- 11:01PM, mrpopstar wrote:

Nov 26, 2012 -- 10:52PM, kadim wrote:

So what abilities would the chaotic good paladin have (or rebel with a cause, let's say)?

Probably a lot of effects with a 'freedom' theme: protection against domination, an aura that breaks or ignores effects that hold others against their will (like hold person), the ability to sense tyranny in the hearts of men, etc.

Just got the image of William Wallace from that. He was totally a chaotic good paladin.

Neutral is still bugging me. All the stuff I can think of is inherently rebellious or judgemental. That's the one place where I sorta feel like the concept falls short, though I could see LN/CN/NG/NE.

Chaosfang mentioned druids and that's cool, but for me that's the purview of the ranger. You could almost make the ranger part of the paladin class under this concept but the hunter/tracker thing deserves to be its own class, I think.